mikhail said:
It's misunderestimating, stoopid. 
Dumn yanks.
Dumn yanks.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Nick Against the World (72 Viewers)
- Thread starter IncuboRossonero
- Start date
I think you'll find every country has stoopid people not just the US.
Buy on AliExpress.com
A friend of mine travelled to Israel once. He was giving a short course over there. He spent two hours being grilled by four Israeli soldiers who told him that they couldn't hear his Irish accent (apparently, Irish passports are or were something of a valued commodity in certain circles). Cue him turning up his native Cork accent to its full shrill glory, "Whaddya mean, you can't hear my Irish accent?" They let him go.
If you've never heard the Cork accent, well, you're missing an experience.
If you've never heard the Cork accent, well, you're missing an experience.
@ Sergio: I know you're not up to it, but godspeed on a recovery. It's great that you're acknowledging what you have to live for. But I'm sure it's a challenge just to get up in the morning and not feel lousy every day. 
int:
I've followed what you've written, Enron. I really want to believe that most Americans are smart enough to know when a line has been crossed between necessary safeguards to opening the floodgates for abuse. (Though as has been said above, it's not about being "smart" per se.) Because as Italian calcio has proven, when it comes to mankind it only takes the opportunity for abuse to invite it -- at least eventually.
Problem is that America has all the makings of a populace that is too busy trying to earn that they're not willing to stop and be citizens first -- to make the sacrifices of personal wealth for the better governance as a whole. "Why should I risk my climb up the ladder and speak up, stir up trouble, when that act could slow me down ... could drop me a rung or two? After all, if I'm getting mine, what concern is it of me if someone else is getting kicked down their ladders in the process?"
We are largely complacent as long as the paychecks and iPods keep coming. There are exceptions, of course -- like the servicemen and women who are putting themselves in harms way in their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice (and I only hope we ask those to make that decision when it really matters). But they are the exceptions. Our government is clearly afraid of asking the nation to tighten belts and make sacrifices (e.g., the internal reponse to the Iraq war years ago).
Not that I think the nation isn't capable of necessary sacrifice, but rather that it's being treated as "third-rail" politics (in metro/subway terms ... i.e., touch it, and you die). And any political group in power who thinks that asking their citizens to sacrifice is a third-rail issue doesn't bode well for where they generally rank the duties of citizenship and their role in good governance relative to personal sacrifice.
Which is to say, in short, that I believe the pot will get really hot here before most citizens will be motivated to notice it and do something -- something that requires personal risk -- about it. Today we are largely represented by a consumer culture. And taking risks when political abuses are happening and when windows for more abuse are opened is just bad for business.
The status quo is easier to defend the more you have more to lose. Americans stand to lose a lot in terms of their economic status in the world. Many Venezuelans, on the other hand, have little to lose -- which is why psychopaths like Chavez can be put in power. I just sense that Americans have to risk losing a lot before the mentality changes. Hence why that frog is going to boil.
int: I've followed what you've written, Enron. I really want to believe that most Americans are smart enough to know when a line has been crossed between necessary safeguards to opening the floodgates for abuse. (Though as has been said above, it's not about being "smart" per se.) Because as Italian calcio has proven, when it comes to mankind it only takes the opportunity for abuse to invite it -- at least eventually.
Problem is that America has all the makings of a populace that is too busy trying to earn that they're not willing to stop and be citizens first -- to make the sacrifices of personal wealth for the better governance as a whole. "Why should I risk my climb up the ladder and speak up, stir up trouble, when that act could slow me down ... could drop me a rung or two? After all, if I'm getting mine, what concern is it of me if someone else is getting kicked down their ladders in the process?"
We are largely complacent as long as the paychecks and iPods keep coming. There are exceptions, of course -- like the servicemen and women who are putting themselves in harms way in their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice (and I only hope we ask those to make that decision when it really matters). But they are the exceptions. Our government is clearly afraid of asking the nation to tighten belts and make sacrifices (e.g., the internal reponse to the Iraq war years ago).
Not that I think the nation isn't capable of necessary sacrifice, but rather that it's being treated as "third-rail" politics (in metro/subway terms ... i.e., touch it, and you die). And any political group in power who thinks that asking their citizens to sacrifice is a third-rail issue doesn't bode well for where they generally rank the duties of citizenship and their role in good governance relative to personal sacrifice.
Which is to say, in short, that I believe the pot will get really hot here before most citizens will be motivated to notice it and do something -- something that requires personal risk -- about it. Today we are largely represented by a consumer culture. And taking risks when political abuses are happening and when windows for more abuse are opened is just bad for business.
The status quo is easier to defend the more you have more to lose. Americans stand to lose a lot in terms of their economic status in the world. Many Venezuelans, on the other hand, have little to lose -- which is why psychopaths like Chavez can be put in power. I just sense that Americans have to risk losing a lot before the mentality changes. Hence why that frog is going to boil.
Greg (well said as ever) that's scratches at hijacking lesson #1: maintain the victim's dignity. If you let them maintain their dignity, their class, their pride, they are unlikely to revolt and the odds are high the Stockholm syndrom will occur.
But, if you make them, say, take off their clothes or refuse them using toilets or other facilities, the victims will quickly feel like "they have nothing to lose" and the hijackers are at increasing risk of being overtaken.
But, if you make them, say, take off their clothes or refuse them using toilets or other facilities, the victims will quickly feel like "they have nothing to lose" and the hijackers are at increasing risk of being overtaken.
http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2006/09/robot_thinks_pe.html
"NEC researchers have created a robot for tasting wine. When turned against its masters, the robot said definitively, "bacon!" and "prosciutto!"
"NEC researchers have created a robot for tasting wine. When turned against its masters, the robot said definitively, "bacon!" and "prosciutto!"
This is very interesting. After the World Cup, Van Basten dropped Van Bommel and Van Nistelrooy from the squad saying they had used up their chances and that he would select better (?) players instead.
So a few matches have gone by, with useless midfields and awful play, and Van Nistelrooy decided to speak to a newspaper and tell them "Van Basten only selects players he likes, players who won't disagree with him too often"
Subsequently Van Basten denies the allegations and calls up Van Bommel this weekend for the EC qualifiers, saying "I always select the best players, and Van Bommel has been playing well for Bayern". One wonders if perhaps he called Van Bommel just to prove Van Nistelrooy wrong. Of course, conveniently, he added "There is no room in the squad for an extra striker"
But, oh, OH, Vennegoor of Hesselink and Huntelaar got injured overnight!!! That leaves TWO empty spots for STRIKERS and, as if the Devil is involved, Van Nistelrooy happens to have been scoring well in Spain AND the Champions League.
Well well well. Time to sit back, crack open a couple of beers and watch Marco sweat. Who to call, who to call...
So a few matches have gone by, with useless midfields and awful play, and Van Nistelrooy decided to speak to a newspaper and tell them "Van Basten only selects players he likes, players who won't disagree with him too often"
Subsequently Van Basten denies the allegations and calls up Van Bommel this weekend for the EC qualifiers, saying "I always select the best players, and Van Bommel has been playing well for Bayern". One wonders if perhaps he called Van Bommel just to prove Van Nistelrooy wrong. Of course, conveniently, he added "There is no room in the squad for an extra striker"
But, oh, OH, Vennegoor of Hesselink and Huntelaar got injured overnight!!! That leaves TWO empty spots for STRIKERS and, as if the Devil is involved, Van Nistelrooy happens to have been scoring well in Spain AND the Champions League.
Well well well. Time to sit back, crack open a couple of beers and watch Marco sweat. Who to call, who to call...